Quantcast The Red and Black
College Media Network

The Red and Black

Search the Archives

 

War spending hurts health care

Abstract:
As of March 10, Peachcare for Kids, Georgia's health insurance program for children of low-income families, will stop accepting new applicants. President Bush, in an effort to reign in the looming federal budget deficit, has submitted to Congress a budget that cuts the funding of programs such as Peachcare....

  • Displaying 1 - 13 of 13

Megan

posted 3/22/07 @ 11:22 AM EST

I'm amazed you want the government to pay for your child's visit to the dentist, so you choose to blame the President because he might not be able to get coverage from a state program designed for low income families who cannot afford any other health insurance. The fact that you can and do provide private insurance for your son, and that you are continuing your education speaks well of your ability to care for him, but makes your argument pretty far fetched.

Many Iraqi boys and girls much like yours have had their lives changed for the better as a result of our involvement, regardless of whether you think our reasons for being there are right. These kids now have a chance at education, because our soldiers are helping to establish schools for them. They get excited to see our men and women in uniform coming with toys, candy, hugs...normal childhood treats that some have been deprived of for much of their short little lives.

The children my husband unearthed in a mass grave during one of his two combat tours in Iraq didn't get those experiences. Those kids were slaughtered by the regime of a man who, you are right, "loved only himself." What makes them different than your son? Only that they were born in Iraq rather than the US. These graves, which contain thousands of bodies, have been and are being found all over Iraq. You say that isn't a humanitarian crisis?

So, before you write another column complaining about wanting government assistance that you may not require to put food on the table, think about those kids. Think about the little girl who won't be subjected to a rape room at the age of ten or twelve because the people who established them are gone. Think about the kids who, just the other day, were left in the backseat of a car to be blown to bits by an IED, presumably by their own parents. Treasure your son's privileges Chris, and be grateful for the fact that he can even get to a dentist.

Zaid

posted 3/22/07 @ 2:20 PM EST

I AM AMAZED that you think that public healthcare (much cheaper and more efficient than privat healthcare) should be more important than bombing the hell out of Iraq. I'm amazed you put his child's health lower than the profits of Halliburton and Blackwater.

Give me a break. Good article man.

Fred Maidment

posted 3/23/07 @ 3:02 AM EST

Originally posted by

Zaid

I AM AMAZED that you think that public healthcare (much cheaper and more efficient than privat healthcare) should be more important than bombing the hell out of Iraq. I'm amazed you put his child's health lower than the profits of Halliburton and Blackwater.

Give me a break. Good article man.


Wait, wait... Did you just say that government healthcare is MORE efficient and cheaper than private healthcare?

DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IS THE REASON HEALTHCARE IS SO EXPENSIVE TODAY?!?!

When the government requires hospitals to give emergency care to anyone who walks into an ER, even people with a simple case of the sniffles...

When the government provides special insurance for people who otherwise would just pay cash (and therefore more wisely use the healthcare system)...

When government runs hospitals subsidized on taxpayer dollars rather than having it float in the marketplace like private hospitals...

Every one of those actions RAISES the price of healthcare. It's not more efficient! It's wasteful!

But then again, you were probably educated at a government school, so you probably think "free" and "cheap" stuff from the government really is "free" and "cheap."

Joseph

posted 3/22/07 @ 3:48 PM EST

The only thing I would like to see in any article like this is a better connection between cutting public healthcare funds and funding the deficit. I think that your article would have been much better if you had cut it off around a third of the way down and left out all of the political mumbo-jumbo.

Other than that I enjoyed it and found it very informative.

CBL

posted 3/22/07 @ 5:33 PM EST

How does one construct an argument to criticize the costs of health care services by stating one's problem and then attempting to blame it on another failed U.S. foray in nation-building? At least I think that is what is being said, as this is a very poor excuse for a constructed and supported argument as it is. But, you chose to conceive your son, so you should have been prepared for the costs of child-rearing. The average cost of raising a child to adulthood is approaching $300,000. You don't honestly expect the government to pay for that with my tax dollars, do you?

Herodotus

posted 3/22/07 @ 5:44 PM EST

Rather than complaining about your own inability to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor, you should instead find some gainful employment. Once you start to work and produce value you will earn the right to procure the services you so desire.

mbecker908

posted 3/22/07 @ 6:18 PM EST

What an amazing demonstration of Chutzpah. You are a grad student in a major that will adequately prepare you to do nothing but work for an institution of "higher learning". Not like the end of your educational road will allow you to actually contribute to gross national product or the general welfare, and you expect your fellow citizens to fork over cash to care for your offspring.

I suppose it's probably undignified to go to your nearest WalMart and be a greeter in your spare time? In short order you would qualify for health care benefits. Is, perchance, you spouse unable to work at a real job?

Bottom line, you snotty little punk, it's a good thing you're planning on staying in the environs of unreality. You wouldn't last two days in the real world.

Chris Breault

posted 3/22/07 @ 7:41 PM EST

As usual you people decline to make comments of any real substance and instead engage childish name-calling, but so be it.
In response to the attacks upon my field of study, supposed career path and it's assumed complete lack of social good: Studying philosophy has enhanced and sharpened my ability to think. Because of this I have scored in the 97th percentile on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test), which means I will be getting into a rather nice law school. Which also means in four years I'll have and income of over six figures. Which means I'll be paying no less than $30,000 per year through my working career. More than likely this figure will double after eight or nine years and probably triple after eight or nine more. So, as a citizen, I will probably contribute more to our nation's tax coffers than everyone else here who has commented combined. Would any of this be possible without such things as PELL grant and FSEOG grant (both need-based undergraduate grants)? Absolutely not.
So you see, the theory is if you help the children of disadvantaged citizens grow up healthy, strong and well-educated they will themselves become law-abiding high-productive citizens. In this way our society stays economically competitive and saves billions in prisons, courts, and welfare programs generally.
One way or another the poor and disadvantaged will exact a cost on society, be it through education and healthcare or through crime and punishment.

Fred Maidment

posted 3/23/07 @ 3:17 AM EST

Originally posted by

Chris Breault

As usual you people decline to make comments of any real substance and instead engage childish name-calling, but so be it.
In response to the attacks upon my field of study, supposed career path and it's assumed complete lack of social good: Studying philosophy has enhanced and sharpened my ability to think. Because of this I have scored in the 97th percentile on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test), which means I will be getting into a rather nice law school. Which also means in four years I'll have and income of over six figures. Which means I'll be paying no less than $30,000 per year through my working career. More than likely this figure will double after eight or nine years and probably triple after eight or nine more. So, as a citizen, I will probably contribute more to our nation's tax coffers than everyone else here who has commented combined. Would any of this be possible without such things as PELL grant and FSEOG grant (both need-based undergraduate grants)? Absolutely not.
So you see, the theory is if you help the children of disadvantaged citizens grow up healthy, strong and well-educated they will themselves become law-abiding high-productive citizens. In this way our society stays economically competitive and saves billions in prisons, courts, and welfare programs generally.
One way or another the poor and disadvantaged will exact a cost on society, be it through education and healthcare or through crime and punishment.


I will say this only once: If the government didn't provide it, someone else would.

Do you realize that 1/4 of our Gross Domestic Product is government spending on the Federal, State, and Local level? That's more than THREE TRILLION DOLLARS every year. The vast majority of these funds are not going to raods which improve our ability to generate commerce, or to the military which protects our borders (supposedly). The vast majority of this money is spent in TRANSFER PAYMENTS, or payments for which no good or service is purchased.

This money could be invested into businesses that provide jobs. In doing so, that money could be providing for people's retirement. Just a cursory glance at social security reveals a pyramid scheme so poorly constructed that any private individual who operated the same program would be hauled off to jail!

When government spends money on anything other than the basics necessities, those that provide for the protection of life, liberty and property; the settling of disputes (the courts); or improving the ability to conduct trade (roads, for example) it is WASTING MONEY because the free market could do it much more efficiently and effectively. Sure, there wouldn't be PELL grants, but there would still be education loans. I'm sure there would also be a lot more part-time educational programs than there are today.

The fact of the matter is, you chose to have a child for whom you could not afford to provide the necessary care. That was your decision, and while I feel sorry for him, I have no sympathy to you. You may one day become a lawyer and make that wonderful six-figure salary. Good for you. I'm glad you plan on contributing to society (that is, if you don't become an ambulance-chaser). Despite this, your characterization of the Bush Administration being responsible for your inability to get your son to a dentist is still specious at best and an outright lie at worst.

YOU are why your son does not have dental care. Deal with it, and stop asking the rest of us to pay for your mistake.

Herodotus

posted 3/23/07 @ 12:28 PM EST

Originally posted by

Chris Breault

As usual you people decline to make comments of any real substance and instead engage childish name-calling, but so be it.
In response to the attacks upon my field of study, supposed career path and it's assumed complete lack of social good: Studying philosophy has enhanced and sharpened my ability to think. Because of this I have scored in the 97th percentile on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test), which means I will be getting into a rather nice law school. Which also means in four years I'll have and income of over six figures. Which means I'll be paying no less than $30,000 per year through my working career. More than likely this figure will double after eight or nine years and probably triple after eight or nine more. So, as a citizen, I will probably contribute more to our nation's tax coffers than everyone else here who has commented combined. Would any of this be possible without such things as PELL grant and FSEOG grant (both need-based undergraduate grants)? Absolutely not.
So you see, the theory is if you help the children of disadvantaged citizens grow up healthy, strong and well-educated they will themselves become law-abiding high-productive citizens. In this way our society stays economically competitive and saves billions in prisons, courts, and welfare programs generally.
One way or another the poor and disadvantaged will exact a cost on society, be it through education and healthcare or through crime and punishment.


Chris any future income that you may or may not receive is irrelevant. Depriving the owner of his or her hamburger today just so that you can enjoy the unearned benefits of that hamburger cannot be justified on the basis that you might produces more hamburgers in the future.

No matter what the future holds for you or anyone else theft today cannot be excused by possible production tomorrow. You very clearly claim ownership to the fruits of someone else's labor (doctors, nurses, etc.) without the voluntary exchange of value for those fruits, and as such your claim is tantamount and consistent with the definitions of theft.

mbecker908

posted 3/23/07 @ 12:42 PM EST

Originally posted by

Chris Breault

As usual you people decline to make comments of any real substance and instead engage childish name-calling, but so be it.
In response to the attacks upon my field of study, supposed career path and it's assumed complete lack of social good: Studying philosophy has enhanced and sharpened my ability to think. Because of this I have scored in the 97th percentile on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test), which means I will be getting into a rather nice law school. Which also means in four years I'll have and income of over six figures. Which means I'll be paying no less than $30,000 per year through my working career. More than likely this figure will double after eight or nine years and probably triple after eight or nine more. So, as a citizen, I will probably contribute more to our nation's tax coffers than everyone else here who has commented combined. Would any of this be possible without such things as PELL grant and FSEOG grant (both need-based undergraduate grants)? Absolutely not.
So you see, the theory is if you help the children of disadvantaged citizens grow up healthy, strong and well-educated they will themselves become law-abiding high-productive citizens. In this way our society stays economically competitive and saves billions in prisons, courts, and welfare programs generally.
One way or another the poor and disadvantaged will exact a cost on society, be it through education and healthcare or through crime and punishment.


I'm simply amazed. First of all, your contention that your future income will be "over six figures" is simply a hope on your part. It might be. More than likely, given the numbers of lawyers v. numbers of partner track positions in major firms, it won't be.

Second, just how are you planning on paying for your nifty law school? Probably student loans that are underwritten and subsidized by me. You forgot to factor in a whine for your debt service after graduation. And, pray tell, what will you do if you don't manage a parter track job?

Third, your assumption about your "contributions" to the tax coffers isn't even close. You have a seriously inflated opinion of yourself, especially given that you have absolutely no track record of accomplishment to point to.

Fourth, if we grant that your assumptions about your future prospects are correct, your original premise - that I should pay for your kid's dental work - is all the more outrageous. Put it on plastic or borrow the money from your long suffering parents. You can well afford it.

matthew

posted 3/23/07 @ 10:20 AM EST

Oh, silly Fred. You, more than any of us here in this forum, should understand that the degree to which an economy adheres to stict capitalism defines the degree to which some people will have to be poor. The system cannot tolerate ever widening wealth distribution.
The entire system is predicated on the capital generation produced by poor people attempting to become rich. Thus, there must be a population of poor people, that is, people who experience a relative deprivation of material goods. Healthcare in this case.

Brian

posted 3/23/07 @ 2:44 PM EST

Chris, Chris, Chris!!! I am guessing you are a socialist who wants global health care as well. You obviously have no common sense to think like a capitalist, no wonder you are majoring in philosophy. Global health care means my tax dollars for some D-BAG who wouldn't get a job to pay for his or her own health care or family members. Any adult living in this country who isn't making the minimum wage is a complete waste of space and sucks at life unless they have an illness that prevents them from working.

I partially agree with you that the war needs to end even though you made a useless arguement, and you had no reason to bash Bush. I would rather us be in Iraq for 10 more years than to see my tax dollars go to some piss of shit D-BAG who refuses to work and gets the same healthcare as myself.
  • Displaying 1 - 13 of 13

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

 

 

Advertisement

Poll

Hmm, what to make of Kentucky vs. Georgia:
Submit Vote

View Results



Advertisement